Jump to content

John Doe

Member
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About John Doe

  • Rank
    New Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I’m not a solicitor, but I have had some experience with contracts of employment – although, I’m far from being an expert in employment law. In the vast majority of contracts, for jobs that rely on some level of physical “activity”, there will be stipulations around what would constitute dismissal based on injuring oneself. It may/may not specifically be listed as “gross misconduct” and could, for example, fall under “gross negligence leading to an inability to perform the role assigned”. This could, essentially, read as the same thing, but it is less ambiguous, as gross misconduct could cover a wide range of things outside of the ability to perform a role. Roles this would apply to would range from builders, to highway maintenance, to where driving is an essential part of the role, etc. Now, there would be degrees of circumstance to what would constitute gross misconduct/negligence. If you are a builder and were, for example, to break a leg playing football, whilst you would be unable to perform your role for a period of time, unless specifically listed in your contract, it would be unlikely to be judged as gross misconduct/negligence – although your contract terms may/may not see you receive a lower level of sick-pay. However, if you were to break a leg (or worse) as a result of a drink driving incident (seems relevant!), then the likelihood is that this would fall under gross misconduct/negligence and there would be grounds for dismissal under the terms of your contract. Without having access to the full detail of the relevant investigations, I can only base my thoughts on the topic at hand, from the information that is in the public domain. Lawrence and Bennett, we are told, were fined the maximum allowable under the terms of their contract. To me (and I may be wide of the mark!), that would suggest that they were not deemed to be guilty of gross misconduct, but simply a high level of misconduct under the rules of the club, and thus were fined and allowed to continue with their employment. The fact that they were not injured in the incident probably (but not certainly) played a role in this, given they are still able to fulfill the primary role of their contract – i.e. available to play football as and when required. Keogh, on the other hand, is clearly unable to fulfill the primary role of his contract. The fact that this has occurred due to rank stupidity, is certainly acceptable as a means for gross misconduct. Without having any knowledge of Keogh’s contract, or club rules/statutes on what constitutes gross misconduct, it is impossible to say if his inability to play is the primary reason? I would be surprised, however, if it was not deemed to be a significant factor in any decision the club has made, alongside the fact that due to the nature of how the injuries occurred, it is highly unlikely that any insurance the club would have would cover any wages/cost. It would, in my opinion, go some way to explaining the difference in the outcomes of the 3 players disciplinary processes.
  2. Fans can support the team however they wish, of course they can. That some chose to be pragmatic about last night, in seeing what the long term benefits will be, is equally as valid as others who see the games against Forest as defining the success (or not) of a season. As I said previously. I can see why some are frustrated at the team put out last night, but I just take a different view. Maybe they did have more minutes, etc, but based on them making 8 changes, their First Team it was not!
  3. Was a general comment about some of the things that have been written on here since the game last night. For example, I've read comments about people at the ground, seeing the team, knowing at that point we were definitely going to lose and considering turning around and going home. What happened to supporting the team through thick and thin? Seems some are only willing to support the team when they see the team they want to see? Was I surprised to see as many as 10 changes? Yes. However, it was clear to anyone who took the time to listen in the build up, that Cocu (and the Forest manager also) were going to be making numerous changes for this game. Anyone going to the game expecting to see anything other than Forest Reserves vs. Derby Reserves, clearly wasn't listening. So, whilst I can get some of the "angst", I think large parts of it are a complete overreaction.
  4. Just as some "fans" see supporting the team/manager as optional?
  5. And... Millwall ended up being relegated! (They were top in December if I remember). Not an ideal result tonight, but far too early to be pushing the panic button.
  6. I'm surprised Final Score were even aware that there was football happening outside of the Premier League!
  7. Agreed. And to echo something Martin Samuel mentioned in his piece, the FFP rules are set-up in such a way that teams like us need to find these sources of income as the owner simply cannot invest that level of capital in to the club should he be inclined to. This is especially relevant to those clubs aiming for promotion, who are competing with the relegated Premier League teams and the parachute payments which count towards their FFP total.
  8. Agree with a lot of what has been said above. You've only got to watch some of the season previews/build-ups, and they are all intertwined with the "odds" of this or that happening over the course of the season. I also think though, that some of this coverage spans from that inherent "snobbery" within all mainstream media outlets, that the only league worth discussing nowadays is the Premier League, and the fact that "little old Derby from the Championship" have been able to pull off a deal like this, in the manner that they have done, has pushed a few noses out of joint! I would imagine if a team such as Bournemouth, Crystal Palace, Watford had done this deal, in the same way as we have done, the narrative would be more about what a great deal they have managed to do, rather than what we are seeing in articles such as this.
  9. Do we need a winger? Yes, we probably do to strengthen the look of the squad. IF one doesn't come through the door today does that make this transfer window a disaster? No, far from it. Maybe it will see us with a "what if we'd signed a winger in August" thought every now and again over the next couple of months, but a disaster it wouldn't be. How can a window in which we've signed Bielik (an upgrade at CDM), Clarke (an upgrade at CD - as I think he will prove better than Tomori over the season), Dowell (who will prove his worth over and above the goals he scores), and Rooney (!), be called a disaster. Add to that, the most important signing of all, Phillip Cocu - a huge upgrade on the previous manager. What's the worst that will happen? We go through to January with what we've got. Not the end of the world, and the squad as it is won't be out of things by any means on January 1st.
  10. To move away from Lawrence and Dowell, and look more generally. The club has the stated desire/intent to have a pathway to bring the academy players through to the first team. Bringing in players simply to be backup surely blocks this pathway to a degree does it not? I'm not saying we don't need to bring in another winger, but a) the club may be looking at players we haven't been linked with, or b) the club may feel they have enough within the academy to step up to cover injuries?
  11. Rangers signed Ojo on 18-Jun, at a time when our manager situation was still up in the air. Can't say we missed out on him, as it probably wasn't even an option. Don't think we've missed out on Wilson, either. The next step in his development is to play week-in/week-out in the Premier League (that would be my feeling if I was Klopp). So again, I don't think was even an option for him to return to us this year. On Kent, I can see your point, but given the outlay on Bielik, is the reported £7.5m+ for Kent a bit too much for us at this point?
  12. IF we still want to bring in a winger, given Kristoffer Petersen has landed in Swansea, another name to throw out there... Vito van Crooij (PEC) - 23, predominantly a winger, plays both sides. 9 goals, 4 assists in 30 games in Eredivisie last season (14/10 overall in 61 games).
  13. Whilst they may not finish quite that high, don't be surprised to see Luton in and around the top half. They've got plenty about them, and for a team with reasonable resources (which Luton have), the step up from League One to the Championship isn't that great.
  14. As it stands, gone for 7th-10th. If we can get a central defender and creative forward, then play-offs are possibility. As for the rest... Top 2 - Fulham and Brentford Play-offs - Leeds, WBA, Stoke, Bristol City Relegated - Charlton, Reading and Wigan
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.